Mind the Gap - A Study of NGOs' Access to Supranational Decision-making

(1)

Standard Front Page for Projects and Master Theses

Compulsory use for all projects and Master Theses on the following subjects:

• International Develoment Studies • Global Studies

• Erasmus Mundus, Global Studies – A European Perspective • Public Administration

• Social Science • EU-studies

• Public Administration, MPA User’s manual on the next page.

Project title:

Mind the Gap – A Study of NGOs’ Access to Supranational Decision-making

Project seminar GS-B

Prepared by (Name(s) and study number): Kind of project: Module:

Mathias Hulgård Kristiansen, 47283 BA thesis 5

Maja Kirstine Nygaard Andersen, 46714 BA thesis 5

Laura Neerup Breiø, 47069 BA thesis 5

Thea Karma Kanafani Sandberg, 47189 BA thesis 5

Tea Holmgård Christensen, 47528 BA thesis 5

Name of Supervisor: Sanne Brasch Kristensen Submission date:

December 18, 2013

Number of keystrokes incl. spaces (Please look at the next page): 237.574

Permitted number of keystrokes incl. spaces cf. Supplementary Provisions (Please look at the next page):

(2)

BA)thesis) ) ) ) )

MIND%THE%GAP%

%

!"A"Study"of"NGOs’"Access"to"Supranational"

Decision!making"

% % % ) Thea%Karma%Kanafani%Sandberg% Maja%Kirstine%Nygaard%Andersen% Mathias%Hulgård%Kristiansen% Tea%Holmgård%Christensen% Laura%Neerup%Breiø% ) Supervisor* Sanne%Brasch%Kristensen% ) FALL)2013)

(3)

Abstract

This study investigates the procedures for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to gain access to the European Union agenda-setting. These procedures are sought investigated in the light of the globalizing world and the increased variety of actors influencing the decision-making process at a supranational level. This raises the question of democratic legitimacy at a supranational level. This study applies a critical theoretical approach and thus uses a normative ideal to establish how democracy at a supranational level should institutionalize procedures for involving NGOs in the agenda-setting.

The empirical data are based on interviews with actors from the organized civil society. Through an exploratory interview with the NGO Danish Society for a Living Sea (LS), their different channels of access to the EU decision-making are established and found to be based upon membership of various networks. The empirical data in this study is thus based on interviews with key employees in the networks Concord Denmark and Concord Europe, in the association Seas At Risk, and in Long Distance Regional Advisory Council established by the EU Commission. To ensure that the complexity in the empirical data is not lost when analyzed in relation to the democratic ideal, there is conducted a thematical analysis. The ideal applied in this study is based on Habermas’ procedural theory of deliberative democracy. The analysis is based on two levels in reaching access to the EU decision-making process, which were extracted from the empirical data: the first level is perceived as the NGOs’ access to the networks, the second is perceived as the networks’ access to the EU institutions. The analysis clarifies that it is easy for LS to gain access to the networks, yet their ability to take part in the internal agenda-setting in the networks is determined by their capacities. At the second level there are more difficulties in reaching access. The access as well as the agenda-setting is based upon the informal communication between organized civil society and EU institutions. The analysis exposes two major procedural gaps in the EU’s institutional setup, which promote informal communication. The first gap is the inability to institutionalize a room for the inclusion of the NGOs in the decision-making process in the EU. The second is the institutional structure of the EU’s institutions, which provide a room and incentives for. The study concludes that the European Union lacks an institutionalized room, based on communicative rationality, in order to be legitimate in the light of the deliberative democracy.

(4)

!

CHAPTER!1!

INTRODUCTION!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(7)

1.1 Problem Field

Globalization and Democracy

Within the structures of the international system, changes can be identified. The relation between states, civil society and international organizations has become more complex and interconnected, as politics have begun to reach beyond the nation state (Held & McGrew 2007:139). This development has caused new challenges for participation and democracy as many decisions have moved towards supranational institutions. David Held (1995) defines globalization as the main reason of contemporary challenges to democracy. He identifies a line of problems posed by globalization, looking at the disjuncture between the idea of the state as capable of determining its own future, and the world economy, international organizations, regional and global institutions, which shape and constrain the options of nation states (Held 1995:99). The new structures of the international system are also challenging the traditional idea of government, imposing a shift towards the concept of governance. The decisions being made at a supranational level are products of cooperation between a multifaceted range of actors (Jenson 2009:461). With the new levels of decision-making changing to subnational, transnational, and supranational levels, the traditional democratic organization is being modified and transformed by incorporating the concept of governance. The incorporation of new actors to the decision-making process entails a wide variety of participants from the public, private and voluntary sector as labor unions, trade unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Jenson 2009:461).

Globalization has further changed the conception of democracy representing a constraint on the sovereignty of decision-making in a state (Wæver 1996:116). The decision-making in supranational institutions, such as the European Union (EU), has an increased effect on national policies. The traditional conception of democracy is thus being challenged by the fragmentation of political power and it must be questioned whether the nation state itself can remain the center of democratic thought (Dahl 1989; Held 1995; Wind et al. 2012). The EU is a result of political cooperation at a supranational level, and it is generally discussed whether it is possible to reconcile and integrate supranational cooperation with democracy. The EU has evolved from being an economic collaboration among a few European countries to a political community between several countries. The question in this context is whether political cooperation

(8)

at a supranational level provides sufficient space for democracy to develop and become an integrated part of the European community.

The European Union and the Democratic Deficit

The question of a democratic deficit in the EU entails a question of democracy at a supranational level. The EU is a new subject for theories of legitimacy and poses fundamental challenges to the established concepts and principles of democratic theory (Føllesdal 1997:2). The voluntary integration of the European states has implied that a great deal of state policy is framed and limited by the European level due to shared competences of policy making (Hix & Høyland 2011:6). Thus, the sovereign state cannot remain the sole focus of normative reflection of democracy. The European influence on member states concerns economic, environmental and social politics, which recently were seriously expanded by the European Union’s handling of the Euro-crisis (Wind et al. 2012:318p). In the integration process of the EU the question of democratic legitimacy has become increasingly important. If globalization creates a need for a supranational decision-making, it is important to ask on what ground legitimacy of supranational decisions is based.

These changing structures pose a demand for a new understanding of democracy that can be applied to the EU. First the democratic challenges must be understood in relation to the EU institutions. The power in the EU is distributed among three main bodies: the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, and the Commission (Føllesdal 1997:4). The structure of the EU as a political body is based on direct elections to the European Parliament and indirect elections to Council of Ministers, which various theorists have argued as sufficiently democratic (Moravcsik 2002; Majone 1998). Moravcsik states that the areas not being hold democratically accountable at EU level coincide with areas which are not even hold democratic accountable in the national contexts, as central banking, constitutional adjudication, and economic diplomacy (Moravcsik 2002:613). This understanding is founded in the tradition of representative democracy, where the existence of fair elections secures democratic legitimacy.

Other scholars as Hix & Føllesdal (2006) have argued that there is a severe democratic deficit at EU level, mainly based in the absence of a European public debate, which undermines the legitimacy of elections; both in the context of direct elections to the

(9)

European Parliament and indirect elections to the Council. The role of the electoral competition at the EU level is considered particularly important, as it would provide EU citizens with competing political positions to choose from and thus enable them to make an informed choice during election periods (Hix & Føllesdal 2006:536p). They see the inadequate EU party system and the absence of a parliamentarian opposition at EU level as the greatest hindrance to the development of democracy at supranational level. Hix & Føllesdal continues by emphasizing that the EU agenda is rarely debated at election time – or at any other time. In relation to this, they also stress that the distance from voters to the EU is too great institutionally and psychologically (Hix & Føllesdal 2006:537). The thoughts of Hix & Føllesdal can be related to a deliberative logic of democracy, where dialogue is seen as a key objective (Wind et al. 2012:266). In their perspective the democracy of the European Union must be further developed, which places them in opposition to Majone and Moravcsik.

In the recent years, one of the most promoted strategies to decrease the democratic deficit has been to improve the European governance (Magnette 2003). According to Magnette the concept of governance is understood within the patterns of decision-making, which takes place in a larger set of institutions including a broad range of actors and processes (Magnette 2003:1). In this study, the mentioning of governance will mainly refer to the increased inclusion of non-governmental actors, such as NGOs, in the decision making process. A further elaboration on the complex term of governance will be outlined in chapter 2. It is recognized by the EU, that the EU institutions need to enhance the cooperation with the civil society of Europe in order to increase civil participation in the democratic life of the EU (The European Commission 2001:14p). The Commission enjoys the exclusive initiative of legal and political proposals in the EU (Føllesdal 1997:6). In the White Paper on European Governance from 2001, the European Commission emphasizes that the EU needs to follow a less top-down approach and seek to create better means for the civil society to get involved in the decisions-making process:

“Civil society increasingly sees Europe as offering a good platform to change policy orientations and society. This offers a real potential to broaden the debate on Europe’s role. It is a chance to get citizens more actively involved in achieving

(10)

the Union’s objectives and to offer them a structured channel for feedback, criticism and protest.” (The European Commission 2001:15)

Magnette (2003) argues that the proposals made in order to fulfill this objective are only focusing on a limited aspect of participation. This implies that the Commission will only succeed in including already organized groups in the decision-making process, but not the individual opinions of the European citizens (Magnette 2003). Delanty (1997) reinforce this view by arguing that it is unrealistic that the EU institutions will ever be capable of institutionalizing direct links with the citizens of Europe. Rather they should seek to create institutional space for collective citizens to obtain influence (Delanty 1997:300). In that understanding NGOs and other groups, which represent different interests of the civil society, get to play a significant role in the democratic system of the European Union. In Delanty’s view, it is upon them to narrow the gap that has been created between the political decision-making and the citizens of the European countries (Delanty 1997:300).

The new global order and challenges are forcing nation states to global and regional cooperation, which emphasizes the need of new conceptions and ways of facilitating public opinion to a higher level. Supranational decision must be made within a democratic frame, why supranational institutions cannot be separated from broad participation. Political participation should not only be the exercise of voting power but also a range of activities through which citizens have the possibility of influencing the political power. The presence of an institutional and political framework that permits broad civil participation and management of interests is a necessity. NGOs are a part of the civil society and are perceived as a possible democratic link between the citizens of Europe towards the supranational decision-making institutions of the EU. An example of this is the NGO Danish Society for a Living Sea (LS), who work with fisheries policies and development both at a national, regional, and supranational level, trying to gain access to the decision-making process in the EU. It is nevertheless not clear whether the conditions for the NGOs to act as a link to the EU are fulfilled.

(11)

This leads to the following research question: 1.2 Research Question

How are the procedures of access and communication between organized civil society and supranational institutions democratic, exemplified by Danish Society for a Living Sea and the European Union?

1.2.1 Clarification of Research Question

This study will thus investigate the NGO Danish Society for a Living Sea’s (LS) access to the policy-making processes in the European Union, which goes through various networks. A presentation of the NGO and our considerations in working with this particular NGO is presented in section 3.2. Furthermore, this study is based on the ideal of deliberative democracy by Jürgen Habermas, which focuses on the communicative structures between different actors. The ideal will be presented in chapter 4. This allows a critical analysis of the deeper structures in the democratic processes of decision-making in the EU by relating the ideal to the conditions of access for LS. Thus, NGOs might make up for some of the democratic deficit in the EU, but it must be investigated through their possibility of access and communication.

1.3 Clarification and Delimitation

This study focuses on the relation between NGOs and the institutions of the European Union, why it does not aim to investigate the democratic deficit as a whole. Consequently, we do not examine the validity of the NGOs as representation for the individual citizens nor the civil society. We recognize that democracy entails dimensions, such as representativity and accountability, and reaches from each individual in the civil society to decision-making at EU level. However, this investigation does not aim to grasp the entire process and consequently concentrates on the access for the NGOs. In this study NGOs are not the same as civil society, but a part of what we conceive as the organized civil society. We perceive this to consist of two types of civil society organizations: those who work with providing service- or emergency aid and those who have a political focus. In this study the mentioning of NGOs will only relate to the latter.

(12)

Furthermore, we do not wish to identify the possibilities of influence by NGOs at European level, but mainly focuses on the possibility of access. The wish of the Commission to improve the cooperation between the civil society and the Commission, as mentioned above, is investigated with an emphasis on the possible access and will not identify the potential influence. Thus, this study also delimits itself from policy output and implementation strategies, since input is the only part of the policy-making process we investigate. Mainly the legitimacy of the input process is looked upon, why we delimit ourselves from the final policy formulation and possible influence on this. Magnette (2003), points out that the current democratic debate of the European level is divided into two strong positions arguing for indirect democratic accountability and direct democratic accountability, respectively. We do not wish to engage in this discussion, but rather investigate the possibilities of a more direct democracy between the EU institutions and the organized civil society.

One of the classical elements in theory on democracy is the notion of representativity of the governed people in the governing institutions. This notion will not be the focus of this study, since our aim is to investigate the access of NGOs to the policy-making, and not whether the individual citizens are being represented in the institutions at EU level, nor if the NGOs represent every individual member.

1.4 Structure of the Study

Chapter 2 will outline the context of our field of study, where the term of governance and the EU as a legislating institution will be presented. This is done in order to clarify some main aspects and understandings on which we base the entire study.

In chapter 3 we present our methodology, starting with our perspective on philosophy of science and how this affects our investigation and analysis. Afterwards follows a thorough explanation of the choice of method, interviewees, strategy for procession of empirical data, methodological reflection, and strategy of analysis. This is done to secure transparency towards this study’s findings.

Chapter 4 is a presentation of the theoretical framework based on Habermas’ perspective on deliberative democracy. The chapter is constructed as an argument

(13)

leading to our understanding of deliberative democracy, built on Habermas’ basic concepts and democracy as an ideal. Habermas’ theoretical framework is massive, and our delimitations of his theory are outlined in 3.6. However, we seek in our presentation of the theoretical framework to encompass the relevant aspects of Habermas’ theory in order to fully understand his ideal of deliberative democracy. Last part of chapter 4 is the operationalization of our theoretical frame, in which we elaborate the relation between the deliberative democracy and the field of study.

Chapter 5 presents the analysis of LS’ possibility to access and communicate with the European Union institutions. The analysis is constructed with a division of levels in mind, as the NGOs gain access to the European decision-making through different networks.

In chapter 6 a discussion of the conclusions of the analysis will be conducted. This entails a discussion of the conditions for democracy at supranational level framed by the ideal of deliberative democracy. Further it reflects on the possibilities for procedures to legitimize democracy in supranational institutions.

Finally, chapter 7 will conclude on our findings, followed by a reflection on our study and our methodology. Chapter 8 is a reflection on how the conclusions of the investigation can be related to the field of study.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(14)

!

CHAPTER!2!

GLOBALIZATION,!

GOVERNANCE,!AND!

THE!EU!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

(15)

T

he contextual frame of the research question is based on globalization and the democratic challenges regarding policy-making at a regional and supranational level. In this regard the concept of governance and the importance of new actors such as NGOs has come to play an important role. To understand the changing structures of international relations, i.e. organization of states, civil society, and supranational institutions, policy-making in a global context will be outlined in the following section. Furthermore relevant aspects of the policy-making process in the EU will be presented. 2.1 Globalization

This study is based on the significant expansion of international regulation during the recent years, which involves complex policies between states, civil society and international organizations (Held & McGrew 2007:138p). There is a debate on how to interpret these processes and whether they are evidence of globalization, increased integration between states in various regions, or other tendencies such as westernization (Held & McGrew 2007:138p; Delanty 2009:82pp). What is agreed upon across the specter of both skeptics and globalists is that:

“… the battleground has become the entire globe, and the types as well as the number of participants have greatly expanded to include states, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations.” (Held & McGrew 2007:139) This study is placed on the globalists side and acknowledges thereby that the processes of complex interconnections and interrelations between states and societies has rendered traditional, state-centered democratic theories of little use, since democratic theory:

“ (…) is concerned with ‘what is going on’ in the political world and, thereby, with the nature and prospects of democracy…” (Held 1995:ix)

Therefore it is necessary to take the processes of globalization, i.e. the “complex intermeshing of local, national and global relations and processes” into account (Held 1995:ix). This entails a shift in the role of the state from that of a hierarchical governing through direct control, to governance where the state collaborates with many different

(16)

types of actors in networks which cut across the public, private and voluntary sectors and operate across different levels of decision making (Jenson 2009:461).

The interconnectedness thus indicates that policies by no mean only affects the state in which they are decided upon (Held 1995:17). This study’s research question must therefore be understood and investigated in the light of a globalized world with many actors affected by the implemented policies. In this regard non-governmental actors seek to impact the policies, why the access towards the decision-making institutions will be investigated. In this study the mentioning of implicated actors will not refer to all affected by specific policies but only the organized civil society in Europe, as this is the focus of the research question.

2.1.1 Governance and Supranational Policy-making

The governance term has become rather weak in its essence due to its popularity (Bogason 2009:126). The vantage point across theories of this term is a focus on the policy process rather than structural procedures (Bogason 2009:126). The investigation of the condition of democracy in governance is thus of increased importance due to the emergence of more and more supranational policy-making arenas, such as the UN, the WTO, the WHO and the trend for regional supranational collaborations, e.g. EU, ASEAN, and MERCOSUR. According to Held (1995) democracy seems to be the predominant ruling form in the world.

Bogason states that there has been a general tendency towards a decline in participation in general elections in most nations and disillusionment with traditional types of politics (Bogason 2004:8). According to him this:

“(…) coincides with the general tendency towards the weakening of the nation state in favor of supranational regimes like the E.U., the system of human rights and so on, and consequently there has been a certain hollowing out of the powers of national parliaments.” (Bogason 2004:8)

The tendency towards more intra- and supranational organizations of states is challenging the traditional understanding of democracy based in the nation state (Bogason 2004:12). The EU started as a free trade agreement and has during the last

(17)

half a century developed into a highly complex supranational organization (Bogason 2004:11). Therefore the EU has been chosen as the field of study in order to investigate democracy of supranational institutions.

2.1.2 Civil Society’s Advocacy Work

It is possible to argue that the European Commission is seeking to address the complexity of the EU policy process since they show a strong will in order to bring the civil society, mostly in the shape of NGOs, into the policy process. Among other things, this is evident in the White Paper on European Governance, as elaborated in section 1.1. The acknowledgement of the importance of channels of influence outside the parliamentary system undermines the old understanding of policy-making as based solely on the political institutions. In regard to governance in the EU, this study will focus on the advocacy work of organized civil society in the policy-making and not on the entire specter of lobbyism where the corporate sector is included. This delimitation is made due to the notion that the corporate lobbyism represents economic interests of specific enterprises and not the will of the civil society.

2.2 The European Union

Due to the complexity in the policy-making processes in the European Union, which contains various aspects of policy creation and complex power relations, the following section will discuss how EU in this study is seen as a supranational political system. We perceive three important aspects of the policy process in EU as important: sovereignty, constitution, and the decision-making, why these three will be elaborated. The question of sovereignty in the European Union will be related to the constitutional aspect, as EU does not apply to the traditional perception of sovereignty based on a constitution. The elaboration of these aspects has been selected due to the study’s theoretical focus on the processes of decision-making in the democratic procedures.

2.2.1 Sovereignty and Constitution

First of all, the development of the EU has been surrounded by a definition debate trying to conceive and categorize the EU system. Following Hix & Høyland (2011), we perceive the EU as a supranational political system as opposed to an international organization or a federal state. This definition includes (1) a stable and clearly defined set of institutions for collective decision-making, (2) citizens seeking to realize political

(18)

desires directly or indirectly through the political system, (3) collective decisions having a significant impact in the whole system, and (4) a continuous interaction between political outputs, new demands and further decision-making in the political system (Hix & Høyland 2011:12). Since the EU matches this definition, it can be described as a supranational political system whose political output affects a number of actors including the member states. The relation between the supranational institution of the EU and the national member states has generally been understood as a cede of sovereignty (Wind et al. 2012:371). In opposition to this, Wæver (1996) further develops the concept of sovereignty in order to describe developments within the EU. He argues that sovereignty is a form of power but the content of this form changes over time (Wæver 1996:116). Sovereignty stems from the recognition of a subject in the community of states. Yet the idea of sovereignty as actual full control is misleading since states always have been limited by other actors’ actions that has shaped the conditions of ruling. But sovereignty changes as the conditions reduce the concpet of sovereignty (Wæver 1996:116). Thus, the EU as a political system still consists of sovereign member states, but the political outcomes has a significant impact in the system.

A constitution is generally related to a sovereign state. However, the European political system is based on several treaties, which the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as early as 1986 described as a ‘constitutional charter’ (Hix & Høyland 2011:83). The constitutional character of the treaties lies less in the founding treaties, than in the gradual constitutionalization of the further development of the EU system. The two central principles of this constitutional legislation is the direct effect, where national courts must uphold citizens’ rights created by the EU, and the EU law has supremacy in a given dispute with a national government (Hix & Høyland 2011:83pp).

2.2.2 Decision-making Process

The European decision-making has different institutional setups depending on the type of legislation. The main types of legislation discussed in this study are regulatory policies and expenditure policies (Hix & Høyland 2011:3). Regulatory policies are rules regarding free movement of capital, goods, persons, and services of the single market as well as harmonization, and thus regulation on production standard, competition policies,

(19)

and environmental legislation. Expenditure policies regulate the transfer of resources through the EU budget regarding the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), research policies, and development policies (Hix & Høyland 2011:3). The legislation of the EU is divided into four main groups: one where the competences lie exclusively with the member states, one in which the member states coordinate their policies, one where there exists shared competences between member states and the EU, and finally one where the EU has the exclusive competences (Hix & Høyland 2011:6). The EU has exclusive responsibility of policies in the areas of the Single Market, the EU budget and the Common Fishery Policy (Hix & Høyland 2011:6), why this study only relates to exclusive EU topics. This involves a supranational decision-making process where the Commission has monopoly on policy initiatives. The Commission consists of 28 commissioners, one from each member state, appointed by the national governments and responsible for the collective greater good of the EU (Wind et al. 2012:95pp; EU-oplysningen(a)). The policy proposal from the Commission is adopted through a bicameral procedure between the Council and the European Parliament, which was made the most ordinary legislative procedure with the Lisbon Treaty of 2010 (Hix & Høyland 2011:11). The Council is the gathering of all ministers from the member states on a certain topic. The European Council is the most powerful as it gathers all head of states. As part of the bicameral procedure the Council makes decisions by qualified majority voting (QMV), where each seat of the Council is appointed votes according to the size of the population of the national country (EU-oplysningen(b)). The European Parliament has 766 members (MEPs), who are elected directly by the European citizens (European Parliament). Both the Parliament and the Council can make an amendment to policy proposals, and can after three readings approve a proposal (Wind et al. 2012:123). If the Commission and Parliament have troubles agreeing on a proposal they can meet in direct negotiation, while the European Parliament have the right to dismiss a proposal (Wind et al. 2012:123). The approved legislation is directly effective and supreme over national law enforced by the European Court of Justice (Hix & Høyland 2011:6).

Consequently, the non-governmental actors seeking access to the decision-making process of the European Union must relate to these three institutions. The decision-making process of the EU has been modified and reformed in each new treaty, latest seen in the Lisbon Treaty of 2010 (Hix & Høyland 2011:11). The Lisbon Treaty granted

(20)

the European Parliament with extensive power, as it became a part of the ordinary procedure (Wind et al. 2012:124). This change in power between the EU institutions has implied a shift in the focus of civil society trying to impact EU legislation.

!

(21)

!

CHAPTER!3!

(22)

3.1 Philosophy of Science

3.1.1 The Emancipatory Interest

Based on the critical theoretical approach of this study, the focus is to make a critical investigation of the relationship between organized civil society, exemplified by NGOs, and decision-making in the European Union. This section further outlines the ontology and epistemology of this study, in order to explain the emancipatory interest embedded in this study’s research question.

The EU Commission has explicated the role of NGOs in the process of policymaking as a way of diminishing the democratic deficit in the EU, cf. 1.1. The Commission attempts to bring the civil society closer to the EU institutions and the policy-making by institutionalization of the communication processes with NGOs. However this communication needs to be scrutinized in order to establish an understanding of whether the democratic deficit in the EU can be solved through the institutionalization of the communication. The investigation and evaluation of the role of NGOs in the decision-making process in the EU will thus necessarily be based upon an idea about what is democratic. This implies a need for a discussion of democracy itself. The relevance of such a discussion is the implication of a belief that there is a social reality. We shall therefore not concern ourselves with a discussion of whether there exists a real world. Thus, we have a realistic, positivist ontology and believe that the social reality exist, have an impact upon people, and that it can be changed (Juul 2012:319). This further implies that a radical constructivist position, which focuses on the social construction of reality, will not be applied (Pedersen 2012:188). This study is a critical investigation of the organized civil society’s accessibility in the policy-making in an existing reality. It seeks to expose the hidden structures in the relations between NGOs and the process of decision-making, thus there is an immanent emancipatory interest, i.e. liberation potential in the critical analysis of NGOs democratic access to the European Union (Højbjerg 2007:335). The investigation is conducted through thorough processing of qualitative empirical material collected on different levels of the process towards the decision-making. Furthermore, it is based on examination of procedures and communication between the NGO Danish Society for a Living Sea, networks, and the EU institutions. Our epistemological approach is post-positivistic, which entails that we

(23)

gain knowledge of the social reality and needs to be critical towards this reality and illuminate it in order to reach the emancipatory potential (Juul 2012:323).

3.1.2 Knowledge and Interest

The question is how to illuminate the institutionalized possibilities for NGOs to access the decision-making in the EU in a critical way that is academically applicable and valid. To answer this question it is essential to define the relationship between is and ought to be in the social sciences, why this is the focus of the following section.

This division in science is created as a reaction to the positivist idea that the scientist can be objective in all aspects of his research and therefore only operates with is (Habermas 1971:303). Some argue that positivist epistemology is not applicable or at least should be debated in the social sciences since these are concerned with the complexity of humans and human relations (Fuglsang & Olsen 2007:10p). In this respect it is important to establish the relationship between knowledge and interest to be able to reach valid social science.

In the article Knowledge and Human Interest: A General Perspective (1971) Habermas discusses the relationship between knowledge and interest. He argues that this relationship is based on the nature of human beings, where knowledge and is are the same and interest and ought to be are the same, and intertwined in social science (Habermas 1971). Therefore there is not a distinction in the relationship between is and ought to be, since they are both based in the nature of human beings. He argues that the concept of sciences, being knowledge-constitutive of human interests, already joins the elements of knowledge and interest:

“From everyday experience we know that ideas serve often enough to furnish our actions with justifying motives in place of the real ones.” (Habermas 1971:311)

This means that we often justify our actions with believed interests, instead of the real ones that are often not realized:

(24)

“In both cases the manifest content of statements is falsified by consciousness’ unreflected tie to interests, despite its illusion of autonomy.” (Habermas 1971:311)

Habermas thus argues that there will be some implicit interests on all levels of rationalization, and therefore there cannot be real objectivity and knowledge free of interest. That the sciences have sought to establish routines so as to counter the influence of this subjectivity of opinion is only half of the solution. The nature of objectivity itself is the other half of the problem. Objectivity itself will at all times be defined through rationalization that has itself been object to interests; the logic of inquiry itself is object to interest and one can become aware of this yet never deem itself truly free of interest (Habermas 1971:311p). Habermas concludes that we shall come to terms with the metalogical necessity of interests, and that the only way to overcome the objectivist ideas of science is by being the exact opposite of objective (Habermas 1971:316). It is by demonstrating the relationship between knowledge and interest that objectivism is eliminated since objectivism is no longer the goal, as it is impossible to achieve (Habermas 1971:316). The explicit notion of the emancipatory interest of this study is thus to overcome the false idea of objectivity in positivist studies, by explicating a normative ideal. This normative ideal is necessary in order to clarify the relation between knowledge and interest, and thus reach valid science.

In this regard, science should not just interpret the world but contribute to changing it (Juul 2012:321), why scientist should work with a normatively anchored critique of society, and where the social reality is criticized in the light of a normative ideal (Juul 2012:336). Thus this project needs to establish a normative ideal based on an immanent normative critique of the established reality (Nielsen 2010:341), in order to scrutinize the democratic relations and communication between organized civil society and institutions at supranational levels. This study will be based on critical theory, since we consider criticism the best way for science to explicate the true relationship between knowledge and interest (Juul 2012:321). Furthermore, we will use Habermas’ ideal to criticize the reality.

(25)

3.1.3 The Nature of the Normative

In order to mirror the reality and thereby expose the structures in relation to our field of investigation, we need to gain an understanding of the normative and why it is important in this particular study, which will be the focus of this section.

Critical theory is epistemologically based upon the conviction that the social science shall be critical and that the critique should be able to be traced back to and founded in a real, not theoretical, emancipatory interest (Juul 2012:323). It is by holding the critical normative ideal up above the social reality as a critical mirror that the state of democracy can be judged, and the critique of the actual condition can be discussed to argue where the reality does not correlate to the ideal (Juul 2012:333p).

The normative ideal, upon which the emancipatory potential is based, is of great importance for a critical theoretical analysis and therefore the grounding of this normativity needs to be discussed and explicated. This study subscribes to Habermas’ foundation of the normative element in a linguistic philosophy, opposed to other critical theorists, like Honneth who bases the normative in concrete human experience (Juul 2012:337). This is done since we are interested in the structures or processes for ideal democracy, and not in people’s experience of recognitions in the democratic institution of the European Union.

Habermas’ theory is a procedural model for decision-making that says a lot about how the decisions shall be reached but nothing about which decisions should be reached. According to Habermas this would be authoritarian (Juul 2012:332). He argues that the democratic state needs just procedures for decision-making and conflict resolution in order for different groups to live together under the same laws even if they should disagree on the normative ideals of the society (Juul 2012:332). This aspect of his theory will be elaborated in a later section concerning the theoretical framework, cf. chapter 4. Consequently, this study focuses its research question on the process and communication at supranational levels, exemplified by the European Union, based on Habermas’ procedural ideal, instead of concrete methods to minimize the democratic deficit.

(26)

3.1.4 Methodological Implications of Normativity

The research question implies a focus on the democratic processes in the European Union, based on the dialectic coherence between the part and the unity. This is exemplified by LS’s access to the EU in relation to the broader picture of organized civil society in institutions at a supranational level. The analysis will thus take its starting point in the part and consistently reflect upon its relation to the unity (Nielsen 2010:340). According to the critical theoretical approach we further seek to analyze the real and the possible meanings, described by Habermas as the manifested and the latent (Nielsen 2010:352). In this study we will mirror the manifested meanings, based on the collected empirical data, in the normative ideal of the deliberative democracy based on Habermas’ critical theory.

According to Nielsen (2010), critical theory in general does not present a specific methodology for collecting data, but there are no contradictions between critical theory and concrete empirical studies (Nielsen 2010:342). Habermas’ critical theory is not based on empirical studies, since it is a linguistic philosophy, and he does not elaborate on the method to collect data about the manifested meanings. However we have used a concrete methodological approach and collected empirical data using semi-structured interviews. The premise on which we base the dialogue between our theoretical reflection, the research question and the empirical data is of great importance (Nielsen 2010:342), why our empirical data is directed towards an understanding of process through interviews and is to be mirrored in our normative ideal in the analysis.

To sum up, this study is based on critical theory and uses the theories by Habermas in order to mirror the reality into the normative ideal for communication and relations between organized civil society and institutions at supranational levels, exemplified by the NGO Danish Society for a Living Sea and the European Union. It will be investigated through the use of qualitative interviews with selected key actors from the field.

3.2. Selection and Presentation of Interviewees

In order to uncover the process and access to the decision-making in the EU, a mapping of the different paths NGOs can follow in their pursuit to the EU system is important.

(27)

This section will contain an overview and presentation of the interviewees, and a reflection of why they are included in our investigation.

Our focal point is the small NGO Danish Society for a Living Sea (LS). The selection of the qualitative data is based on fixed purposive sampling (Bryman 2012:418), as it is selected for a specific purpose: to illuminate an NGOs access to the EU institutions. We chose to investigate a small NGO on the assumption that it has fewer capacities and resources than a larger NGO, thus it is assumed that a small NGO has more difficulties in obtaining access at EU level. Thereby the possibilities for a small NGO can be argued to apply to the larger ones as well. The choice of LS as focal point is made for several reasons; first, LS aim at impacting the legislation at the supranational level of EU. Secondly, the investigation of an NGO’s access to the EU is made from the NGO’s point of view in order to obtain knowledge of their understanding of the opportunities to gain access to the EU system. Thirdly, we chose to use only one NGO as our focal point, since an analysis of several NGOs would be too comprehensive due to the complexity of the EU system. In order to understand how LS seek access, we made an explorative interview. This contributed to a further understanding of the field, where it was emphasized that being part of a network is essential in order to gain access to the EU. It should be noted that the networks described by LS consist of an association, an advisory council, and networks, but will be referred to as networks in the entire study, regardless of their function. The investigated networks are thus chosen on the basis of LS’ description of working within these networks in obtaining access to the EU. These networks are Seas at Risk, LDRAC, Concord Denmark and Concord Europe. The following table provides an overview of the interviewees from LS and the networks we have been in contact with in our investigation. Furthermore, it gives a brief presentation of each network and their relation to LS.

Name of network Interviewee Type of network Relation to LS Danish Society for

a Living Sea (LS)

Erik Bjørn Olsen, cashier.

NGO working for a healthy marine environment. Based in Denmark.

(28)

head of secretary. development organizations. A part of Concord Europe. Based in Denmark.

Concord Europe Sarah Kristine Johansen, policy officer. European NGO confederation for relief and development. Based in Brussels. LS is a member through Concord Denmark. Seas At Risk (SAR) Björn Stockhausen, policy officer. Association for NGOs in Europe. Based in Brussels. LS is a member. Olsen is a member of the board. Long Distance Regional Advisory Council (LDRAC) Carlos Aldereguía, general secretary. Advisory council established by the European Commission. Based in Madrid. LS is a member of all working groups.

Model 1: Presentation of Networks

It must be noted that there are some inconsistencies in the categorization of the interviewees. SAR is a member of the Executive Committee and several of the working groups in LDRAC (Seas At Risk (a)). Stockhausen from SAR does not relate much to the fact that a great part of SAR’s access to the EU Commission goes through LDRAC. Furthermore, Concord Europe consists of both national platforms and international organizations (Concord Europe). This study will not include the international organizations since LS’ membership of Concord Europe is obtained trough the national platform of Concord Denmark. A notable difference between the networks included in our empirical data is the key issues, which they are funded upon. Where LS, SAR and LDRAC work with issues of marine life and fisheries policy, Concord addresses the issue of development. Thus, the networks do not seek access to the same policies and issues in the European Union.

(29)

3.2.1 Network Mapping

The relations between LS and the networks are outlined in the following model.

Model 2: Network Mapping

3.3 Semi-structured Interviews

The following section will establish our use of semi-structured interviews. The empirical data of this study have been collected through semi-structured interviews (Kristensen 2010:282; Bryman 2012:471). This is done in order to collect information about the interviewees, but also to make room for the interviewees to contribute with unforeseen aspects of the study.

(30)

In order to reach an understanding of LS’ and networks’ access to the EU, we use both exploratory and an in-depth interviews as defined by Kristensen (2010). The exploratory interview is needed in order to understand the structures and work methods of LS and the networks they collaborate with. Elements of this type of interview are present in all of the interview guides. The exploratory elements provide a deeper knowledge of the NGOs’ possibilities to access the EU system, but are supplemented by information from webpages and literature. The in-depth questions are asked in order to investigate the uncovered ways of access to EU. The interviews are structured around specific issues selected on the basis of the study’s prior understanding and knowledge of the field (Kvale & Brinkmann 2009:44). This structure leaves room for creating new understandings through the interaction with the interviewees (Juul 2012:127). Thereby there is a possibility for uncovering other ways of access and discover if certain ways are emphasized more than others.

In regard to this study, we have conducted two interviews with LS. The first interview serves an exploratory purpose by mapping the NGO’s channels to access the European Union and is seen as starting point for the rest of the data collection. The second interview with LS was in-depth in order to investigate the advantages and disadvantages in their connections with networks.

3.3.1 Critique of Interviews

This section will reflect on the possible source of errors concerning the interviews, which can affect the conclusion of this study.

It is important to be aware of the setting of the interview, whether it takes place in a confortable and recognizable environment, if the conversation is formal or informal, and if there is a timeframe of the interview. Due to the geographical distance to the interviewees working in Brussels (SAR, LDRAC) and Jutland (LS), four of the interviews were conducted on Skype or Webex. Though we were aware of the importance of a quiet setting and a good-quality recording during the interview, the communication still suffered some defects. In some of the interviews it was not possible to use webcam, furthermore the sound and Internet connection were problematic, which means that the following transcriptions of the interview contains faults due to lack of sound. By using Skype it can be difficult to establish a comfortable situation, which

(31)

encourages the interviewee to be more open and talkative. Another obstacle was the language barrier, since two of the Skype interviews were conducted in English. In the case of SAR and LDRAC neither the interviewees nor the interviewer has English as their first language, which increase the possibilities for misunderstandings during the interview.

3.4 Interview Guide

The following section will explain the reflections, which was made in order to structure the direction of the interviews. This was done through the use of interview guides, which are a basic tool of the semi-structured interview (Bryman 2012:471). Kvale & Brinkmann (2009) provide the composition of the guides. They are divided into three columns: topics, relevance for the investigation, and explicit questions. With this structure the interviewer has an overview of the general flow to navigate more easily through the topics. Furthermore, it allows the interviewer to pursue the answers of the interviewee if he or she starts following an unpredicted path, which the interviewer still finds essential to pursue.

The first column indicates the topics, which are based on the interest of this study: the NGO and network’s access to the EU. The second column concerns the relevance of the questions in regard to the entire investigation. Finally, the third column contains the interview questions. There are two kinds of questions: black and grey. The black questions are the main questions, and the grey are the supporting questions, in case the interviewer feels that the interviewee needs to elaborate on his or hers answers. The interview guides can be found in the appendix for consultation on the premise for our qualitative data (Appendix 1-6).

3.5 Strategy for Processing of Empirical Data

In this section the processing of the interviews will be described. First the methodological implications in the use of transcription will be explained. Then there will be a description of the strategy for the coding of the interviews, followed by a discussion of the consequences of such an analysis of the empirical material.

Given the amount of empirical material and the normative approach of this study it is essential to secure the complexity in the material and that the study is true to what the

(32)

interviewees express. This has given rise to the use of a thematic analysis of the data, yet this approach to qualitative data analysis can be conducted in many different ways (Bryman 2012:578). However, the method used in this study draws on the approach described by Kristensen (2010), which is elaborated in the following sections.

3.5.1 Strategy of Transcription

We have transcribed the interviews on the basis of a wish to maintain the complexity of the empirical data (Bryman 2012:482). They have been transcribed in full since we want to minimize the risk of immediate analysis of the data in the selection process of a partial transcript (Kristensen 2010:289). The selection process always constitutes the danger of leaving out important details that is not necessarily included in the themes on which the partial transcription is based (Kristensen 2010:289). Emotions and mumbling has been left out of the transcript since the aim of this project is not to make a discourse analysis but to investigate the structures. The interviews in Danish have been translated to English when quoted in this study. The concrete method applied for transcribing is attached as Appendix 7.

3.5.2 Thematic Analysis

This study’s approach to analysis of the data is build upon an idea that there are themes that cut across the interviews (Kristensen 2010:289). The analysis is focused on selected themes, which are compared across the transcribed interviews. It is based upon an idea that it is necessary to understand the part in relation to the unity (Kristensen 2010:289). The part, being each quote and extraction, will be analyzed in connection to the interview as a whole, but also in connection to the other quotes and extractions on the same theme from the other interviews. The importance of the dialectic relationship is seen in the focus of the cross readings of the data, and the goal with this analysis is to create an understanding of the entity of every theme.

This kind of thematic analyzes consists of four distinct yet overlapping phases: 1) coding, 2) meaning condensations of each theme in every interview, 3) comparisons and summaries a cross the interviews and 4) the final analysis and answer to the research question (Kristensen 2010:290). According to Kristensen the first phases in the analysis are based on the interviewees’ point of view (Kristensen 2010:290). This implicates a need to keep the interviewees’ perspectives and meanings about the content. The complexity of the empirical data is thus secured, which makes the critical investigation

(33)

of the complex and hidden structures in the social reality possible without simplifying the data to fit the theoretical point of view. The final analysis starts when the data has been thoroughly processed (Kristensen 2010:290). This fits the critical theoretical position of this study where the social world needs to be illuminated in order to see where and how it differs from the normative theoretical ideal of democracy.

3.5.2.1 Strategy for Coding

The first step in the thematic analysis is coding the interviews. The codes used in this study were developed in respect to an abductive reasoning (Bryman 2012:401). They are founded in three parts: in the general understanding of this study’s field as it is presented in the study’s first two chapters, the topics of the interview guides, and in the primary knowledge gained in the interview situations. From this we reached the following codes:

• Stakeholders

• Resources and capacity • Fair procedures

• Communication • Agenda-setting

• Informal/institutionalized contact (Appendix 14)

This kind of coding enhances the possibility of gaining a structure and an overview of the entire empirical data (Kvale 1996:199). This structuring is especially relevant given the in-depth and semi-structured nature of the interviews where the conversations often exceeded the interview guide, cf. section 3.3.1.

The use of coding in analyzing the collected empirical data has often been criticized for simplifying and fragmenting the empirical data resulting in a simplification of the analysis (Bryman 2012:578). The use of coding is in this particular study not based upon an idea of quantifying and counting the themes seen in the data (Kvale 1996:199) in order to simplify the complexity of the social reality. Rather the aim is to keep the interviews as “thick descriptions” (Torfing 2004:73), i.e. maintaining their complexity.

(34)

The themes are therefore processed according to their relevance for answering the research question and not for their quantity. The quantity of representations of a theme is of no importance, whereas the identifiable similarities and differences in the interviews concerning each code are of real importance and is what will be analyzed upon.

According to Torfing (2004) the process of coding is closely linked to interpretation (Torfing 2004:77). It is not possible to code a document without making an immediate interpretation of the relevance of the specific quote. The process of coding thus entails threats to the validity of the analysis of the empirical data.

These critiques of the use of coding are sought countered in this study by keeping the codes rather broad and inclusive. Furthermore, the focus on the interviewees’ point of view has been sought kept throughout the coding, and there has been emphasis on the possibility of new themes to appear from reading the material. According to Kristensen it is likely that there might appear themes that are not included in the codes but still seem to have relevance for answering the research question (Kristensen 2010:291). When coding, the focus is on themes that ‘stand aside’, seem important, and which cannot be fitted into any of the former codes. The relevance of these themes can be investigated through cross readings of the empirical data, while coding after a new theme. This process can enhance the precision and the nuances in the empirical data (Kristensen 2010:291). In this study it has manifested itself in the development of the code Resources and Capacity (Appendix 14).

The codes have been explained, making a review of the analysis possible, which increases the reliability of the study (Kvale 1996:209). The internal consistency of the study can be enhanced by this explanation since it makes mutual examination possible despite different interpretations, when multiple persons are coding the empirical data (Kvale 1996:208). Disagreements have been sought resolved through debate of the interpretation and the understanding of the different codes, which can be seen in the Appendix 14.

(35)

3.5.2.2 Meaning Condensations

The coding process is a complex work, which can result in the loss of context and the interviewees’ own sense of meaning (Kristensen 2010:291). To prevent this, there have been conducted meaning condensations of all codes in all interviews. According to Kvale (1996) the advantages of using meaning condensations when coding qualitative data, is that they ensure a certain loyalty in the exposition of the interviewees understanding of self and surroundings (Kvale 1996:194). These condensations are descriptive and founded in the interviewees’ point of view and we have aimed not to interpret, by staying faithful to the interviewees’ narratives.

Thereby the use of meaning condensation can be seen as a control mechanism ensuring that the complexity in the interviews and in the codes is not lost (Kristensen 2010:291). There has thus been written meaning condensations of every code of every interview. By only condensing the meaning of each interview the complexity of the themes would be lost, while condensing the meaning of each code but across all interviews would result in loss of complexity in the meanings concerning each code.

3.6 Choice of Theory

This section will outline the reflections made in connection to the choice of using Habermas’ deliberative democracy as the theoretical foundation of the study. It will thus be a discussion of which theoretical vantage points could have been used to analyze the data.

3.6.1 Aim of the Research Question

The aim of the research question is to investigate the procedures of access and communication for the organized civil society at a supranational level. The focus of this study is thus on the procedural aspect of decision-making. A policy analysis would thus not be applicable as this neither evaluates the implementation of the concrete policy nor analyzes what actors have had influence on the specific outcome (Hill 2005:5). Habermas’ democratic ideal is on the other hand based on a procedural approach, which addresses the processes of decision-making from various angles (Habermas 1996). His ideal is thus not focused on the value of the policy outcome nor the implementation of this, but rather on the legitimacy of the procedures in which the policy has been reached (Eriksen & Weigård 2003b:23). Furthermore, the focus on how procedures are

(36)

democratic raises the question of what is democratic and where the legitimacy of democracy stems from. As an example, Aristotle perceives that the legitimacy of a democracy stems from political solutions, which secure the common good of the society, and not from the procedure (Eriksen & Weigård 2003b:24). In contrast, this study’s focus on the procedures will therefore apply a fundamentally different belief of legitimacy in democracies. In the deliberative democracy the legitimacy of a decision is based on the procedure of the decision-making process. This will thus allow a focus on access rather than influence.

3.6.2 Access as Power

Since access to decision-making can be perceived as a struggle between interests, the field could have been investigated with a power perspective emphasizing the competing interests, asymmetrical relations in bargaining situations, or economic influences. In the reading of the empirical data it became obvious that the interviewees focused on the balance of power when talking about the lobbying business in the European Union. A study of power relations in decision-making would have been applicable. Weber’s ideas of the relations of power in connection to authority rule, where the exercise of power must be based on a legitimate order, would be relevant (Månson 2007:100). His understanding of power struggles could therefore be applied in order to understand the complexity of gaining impact on the EU policy-making. Weber’s emphasis on how to solve the fundamental problems in democracies through bureaucratization could furthermore have been used in discussing the procedures of decision-making (Månson 2007:97pp). Yet the research question focuses on the civil society’s access to the procedures of decision-making and contains an emancipatory interest, which is not found in Weber’s bureaucratic perspective.

Weber further develops two understandings of rationality, underlining the process from a traditional rationalization of value-based arguments to the modern rationalization of strategic, goal-based arguments (Månson 2007:107). Thus, Weber conceives that the technical and strategic development of rationalization continues, while Habermas emphasizes the conflicting process of civil society influencing on the system (Eriksen & Weigård 2003b:157). This study aim to investigate how the organized civil society can access supranational decision-making processes, why Habermas’ approach is more applicable.